Table of Contents

How to Respond to an EB-2 NIW Dhanasar Prong 1 RFE

Receiving a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning Dhanasar Prong 1 can be challenging for an EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) petitioner. Even when a petitioner has strong qualifications, significant professional experience, or a background in an important industry, USCIS may still question whether the specific proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.

The central issue is often not whether the profession or industry matters. It is whether the evidence establishes the significance of the particular work the petitioner intends to undertake and explains its potential prospective impact.

For example, healthcare, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing are important fields. However, working in one of these industries does not automatically establish that a particular endeavor meets the national importance standard.

An effective Dhanasar Prong 1 RFE response connects the proposed endeavor to a documented problem, explains its potential broader implications, and supports the explanation with relevant evidence.

This guide focuses specifically on common Prong 1 RFE concerns, evidence that may help address them, the importance of defining the proposed endeavor, and the role of independent expert analysis.

If you need a broader introduction to the immigration category, AAE Evaluations’ EB-2 National Interest Waiver guide provides a starting point for understanding the overall NIW framework. This article addresses the narrower question of how to respond when USCIS questions substantial merit or national importance.

Disclaimer: This article provides general educational information, not legal advice. Every RFE must be assessed according to its wording, the original petition, and the facts of the case. Consider consulting a qualified U.S. immigration attorney before preparing and submitting a response.

What Is Dhanasar Prong 1?

The EB-2 NIW framework is based on Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Under this framework, a petitioner seeking a national interest waiver must establish three elements:

The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
The petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
On balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.

Prong 1 examines the proposed endeavor itself. It considers both the endeavor’s substantial merit and its national importance.

Substantial merit versus national importance

These concepts are related but distinct.

Substantial merit concerns the value of the proposed work. Merit may arise in areas such as science, technology, healthcare, business, education, entrepreneurship, culture, or other meaningful fields.

National importance concerns the potential prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor. Depending on the facts, the analysis may involve broader implications for a field, regional economic effects, technological advancement, societal welfare, or other relevant considerations.

An endeavor can have substantial merit without sufficiently demonstrating national importance.

For example, developing a useful application for a local business may have commercial merit. If USCIS questions national importance, the petitioner may need to explain why the particular work has broader implications beyond the ordinary benefits of providing a service to one customer.

The endeavor does not necessarily need to operate nationwide. A geographically limited project may have national importance if its broader implications or prospective effects are adequately established.

For the governing legal framework, consult the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 and Matter of Dhanasar.

Why Does USCIS Issue a Prong 1 RFE?

A Prong 1 RFE indicates that USCIS needs additional evidence or explanation to determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the applicable standard.

The specific concern depends on the notice. Common evidentiary issues include:

The proposed endeavor is described too broadly or vaguely.
The petition demonstrates the importance of an industry but does not adequately establish the significance of the particular endeavor.
The evidence does not explain the potential broader impact of the proposed work.
Research reports identify a national problem but do not connect it to the petitioner’s activities.
Business projections are not supported by sufficiently explained assumptions.
Recommendation letters discuss the petitioner’s qualifications without substantively analyzing the proposed endeavor.
The evidence primarily establishes benefits to a single employer or customer.
Claims about economic growth, job creation, or innovation lack adequate supporting documentation.

These are examples rather than an exhaustive list of possible RFE grounds.

The first step is to identify the deficiencies USCIS has actually described. The response should address those issues directly rather than simply repeating the original petition’s arguments or submitting additional documents without explaining their relevance.

Concern 1: USCIS Says the Proposed Endeavor Is Too Vague

A proposed endeavor should explain the work the petitioner intends to undertake, its objectives, and the activities through which those objectives may be achieved.

A professional title or general career goal may not adequately describe the endeavor.

Consider these two examples.

Too broad: “I intend to work as a data scientist and use artificial intelligence to benefit the United States.”

More specific: “I intend to develop and implement predictive analytics methods to help regional healthcare providers identify operational bottlenecks and improve clinical resource allocation, with the goal of evaluating whether these methods can be adapted across participating healthcare organizations.”

The second description identifies the proposed work, the problem being addressed, the intended application, and a possible route to broader impact. It does not automatically establish national importance, but it gives the evidence a clearer proposition to support.

How to address this concern

Review the proposed endeavor statement in the original petition. Identify the activities, intended outcomes, target users or beneficiaries, and mechanisms through which the work could produce an impact.

Then determine whether the supporting documents substantiate those elements.

Depending on the endeavor, relevant materials may include:

A detailed proposed endeavor statement.
A project or implementation plan.
Technical specifications or research objectives.
A business plan, where relevant.
Documentation of the problem the work is intended to address.
Evidence explaining anticipated users, beneficiaries, or potential adoption pathways.

If the RFE identifies inconsistencies between the endeavor statement and other petition documents, address them carefully. Do not simply replace the original description with a substantially different undertaking without assessing the legal implications.

For additional examples of how professional activities can be described more precisely, see AAE Evaluations’ EB-2 NIW proposed endeavor examples.

That resource helps readers understand endeavor specificity. The present article focuses on the separate task of demonstrating national importance when USCIS has questioned it.

Concern 2: The Petition Demonstrates Substantial Merit but Not National Importance

A project may be beneficial, technically sophisticated, commercially promising, or professionally valuable. Those characteristics do not necessarily demonstrate that its prospective impact meets the national importance standard.

Consider a petitioner who proposes to provide consulting services to manufacturing businesses.

The petition might establish that the services improve efficiency and reduce operating costs. Those benefits may support the endeavor’s merit. However, if USCIS questions national importance, the response may need to explain whether the proposed work has broader implications for manufacturing methods, productivity, technology adoption, or another relevant area.

Evidence that may help address the concern

Depending on the endeavor, relevant evidence may include:

Independent studies explaining the significance of the problem being addressed.
Technical research demonstrating the potential applicability of the proposed approach.
Evidence of demand from relevant organizations.
Pilot results or implementation records.
Documentation of potential adoption beyond an initial customer or employer.
Research or industry reports explaining broader implications.
Supported analyses of prospective economic, technological, or societal effects.

The evidence should establish a logical connection between the proposed activities and their potential impact.

For example, a report documenting inefficiencies across a major industry may establish that the problem is significant. Additional evidence may still be needed to explain how the petitioner’s particular methods could address that problem and why the proposed endeavor could have broader implications.

A general statement that the industry is important is not a substitute for this connection.

Concern 3: The Petition Relies on the Importance of the Industry

A common weakness is assuming that working in an important field automatically establishes national importance.

This issue can arise in petitions involving artificial intelligence, healthcare, cybersecurity, clean energy, education, finance, infrastructure, and other economically or socially relevant industries.

The legal analysis, however, concerns the specific proposed endeavor rather than the general importance of the occupation or industry.

Example: Artificial intelligence

Suppose a petitioner intends to develop AI-based automation tools.

A report describing the growth of the AI industry may provide useful background, but it does not independently establish the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed work.

A more targeted evidence package might include:

Research documenting a specific operational or technical problem.
A description of the proposed AI method and its intended application.
Technical evidence explaining the approach and its intended contribution.
Testing results or a credible evaluation plan, where available.
Evidence of potential application or adoption.
A reasoned explanation of the possible implications for the relevant field.

The evidence should be appropriate to the development stage. A research-stage endeavor may rely on different indicators from a mature commercial product.

Example: Healthcare

A petitioner proposing to develop a healthcare analytics system might submit public health data showing the significance of a problem, research explaining the limitations of existing approaches, and technical documentation describing the proposed solution.

Pilot results or institutional interest, if available, may provide additional support. If they are not available, the petitioner should not imply that the system has already been clinically validated or widely adopted.

The response should distinguish between established facts, anticipated outcomes, and potential future effects.

Concern 4: The Evidence Does Not Establish Broader Implications

National importance does not necessarily depend on the number of states in which a petitioner plans to work.

A locally focused endeavor may have national importance if its broader implications are sufficiently supported. Conversely, operating in several states or serving a large customer base does not automatically establish national importance.

The key question is what the proposed work may contribute and why that contribution matters beyond its immediate setting.

Evidence examples for different types of impact

Proposed impact	Potential supporting evidence	Important limitation
Advancing a technology	Technical research, testing results, independent technical assessments	Novelty alone does not establish broader impact
Improving public health	Relevant health data, research literature, validated results, implementation evidence	General public health importance does not prove the impact of a particular project
Improving industrial productivity	Operational data, performance comparisons, pilot results, industry research	Benefits to one customer may not establish broader implications
Supporting economic development	Financial assumptions, documented commitments, hiring plans, regional economic data	Unsupported revenue and employment forecasts provide limited support
Improving educational outcomes	Evaluation data, research findings, adoption records, documented program results	Benefits to one institution may not establish broader impact
Addressing infrastructure challenges	Government reports, engineering studies, technical assessments, implementation plans	Identifying a problem does not establish that the proposed solution can meaningfully address it

These are illustrative categories, not mandatory evidence requirements. The relevance and weight of each document depend on the proposed endeavor and the actual RFE.

What if the endeavor benefits one employer?

Evidence of benefits to an employer may help explain the work. However, the fact that an employer operates nationally does not establish that every project undertaken for that employer has national importance.

Explain the specific activities the petitioner will undertake and identify any supported implications for the wider field, other organizations, a region, or the public.

The analysis should be based on the endeavor’s actual characteristics rather than the employer’s size or reputation alone.

Concern 5: The Petition Relies on Unsupported Economic or Job-Creation Projections

Business plans and financial projections can be relevant evidence, particularly in entrepreneurial cases. However, projected revenue, hiring, and expansion should be supported by identifiable assumptions.

A statement that a proposed company will create hundreds of jobs or generate substantial revenue over five years is less persuasive when it lacks a credible basis.

How to strengthen the supporting evidence

Depending on the nature of the endeavor, consider documenting:

The assumptions behind revenue forecasts.
Existing customer relationships and documented sales activity.
Funding received or formally committed.
The expected costs of implementation.
The basis for projected staffing levels.
The timeline for product development and commercialization.
The relationship between planned activities and expected outcomes.
The distinction between existing results and future estimates.

For example, if a petitioner forecasts substantial hiring, the supporting explanation might identify the anticipated roles, hiring stages, operational requirements, and resources needed to support the plan.

If the company is at an early stage, the response should describe its actual status accurately and avoid presenting speculative projections as established results.

Economic effects are only one possible way to support national importance. An endeavor may also derive significance from scientific advancement, technological contributions, societal welfare, or other relevant considerations.

Concern 6: Recommendation Letters Do Not Substantively Analyze the Endeavor

Recommendation letters may provide useful context, particularly when written by professionals with relevant knowledge of the endeavor. However, a letter that primarily praises the petitioner’s education, experience, or reputation may do little to resolve a specific Prong 1 concern.

Qualifications are more directly relevant to the second Dhanasar prong, although they may provide context for understanding the proposed work.

If USCIS questions national importance, the evidence should explain the endeavor’s potential impact.

What should an independent expert address?

A well-supported independent expert assessment may examine:

The precise proposed endeavor.
The problem or need the work seeks to address.
The relationship between the proposed activities and that problem.
The technical, scientific, professional, or economic significance of the work.
The evidence supporting the claimed prospective impact.
Any limitations or assumptions affecting the analysis.

For example, an expert assessing a proposed advanced manufacturing process might explain its intended application, the technical challenge involved, the relevance of available testing, and the potential implications if the method performs as described.

The assessment should not merely repeat statements from the petition or make unsupported claims that the work will benefit the entire country. Conclusions should be grounded in appropriate records and fall within the expert’s professional competence.

For a separate explanation of what makes an expert assessment useful, consult AAE Evaluations’ EB-2 NIW expert opinion letter requirements guide.

That article addresses the qualities of an expert opinion letter. Here, the emphasis remains on how expert analysis may help address a specific national importance concern.

How to Build an Evidence Map for a Dhanasar Prong 1 RFE

Before drafting the substantive response, create a structured map linking each RFE concern to the evidence that may address it.

This process helps identify gaps, avoid irrelevant submissions, and explain the relationship between the documents and the proposed endeavor.

Step 1: Extract each material concern from the RFE

Read the notice carefully and record each issue concerning substantial merit, national importance, or the specificity of the endeavor.

If USCIS raises multiple issues, do not combine them into a single general response.

Step 2: Identify the claim that needs support

For each issue, identify the precise proposition requiring evidence.

Examples include:

The proposed work addresses a documented technical problem.
The method has potential applicability beyond a single organization.
The endeavor may contribute to a field through a specific innovation.
The projected economic effects are based on credible assumptions.
The proposed work has implications for a relevant regional or national challenge.

Step 3: Match the claim to relevant evidence

Identify the documents that directly support the claim. These might include research, official reports, technical records, contracts, pilot results, industry data, or independent expert analysis.

A document’s relevance should be explained rather than assumed.

Step 4: Identify what the evidence does not establish

A report documenting a widespread problem may not establish the effectiveness of the proposed solution. A prototype may establish development progress without proving widespread applicability.

Recognizing these distinctions helps avoid overstating the evidence.

Step 5: Prepare a targeted explanation

For each concern, explain the proposed endeavor, the relevant facts, what the supporting documents establish, and how the evidence relates to the national importance analysis.

The explanation should be consistent with the original petition and responsive to the specific RFE.

Illustrative evidence-mapping worksheet

RFE issue	Evidence already available	Additional evidence to investigate	Explanation needed
Proposed endeavor is too broad	Original endeavor statement and project description	Specific objectives, technical plans, implementation details	Define the activities and intended outcomes clearly
Industry importance is not enough	Industry reports and background research	Evidence connecting the endeavor to a documented problem	Explain why the specific work may have broader implications
Broader impact is unclear	Existing project records	Independent research, adoption evidence, testing, or impact analysis	Explain the potential prospective impact
Economic projections are unsupported	Business plan and financial estimates	Supporting assumptions, customer records, funding documentation	Explain the basis and limitations of projections
Expert letters are generalized	Existing recommendation letters	A focused independent technical or professional assessment	Connect expert analysis to the specific national importance concern

This worksheet is a planning aid rather than an official USCIS form. The response should follow the notice’s instructions and the legal strategy for the individual case.

For a broader discussion of the response process and how expert evidence may fit into it, see AAE Evaluations’ guide on responding to an EB-2 NIW RFE with an expert opinion letter.

Use that resource for the general response workflow; use this page for the specific evidentiary questions involving Prong 1.

The Role of an Independent Expert Opinion Letter in a Prong 1 RFE

An independent expert opinion letter may help explain specialized issues that require professional knowledge, particularly when the RFE questions the significance of a proposed technical, scientific, medical, business, or other specialized endeavor.

The purpose is not simply to obtain another favorable recommendation. It is to provide a reasoned assessment that helps explain the significance of the proposed work and the evidence supporting it.

When may an independent expert be useful?

An expert assessment may be worth considering when:

The proposed work involves technical concepts that require specialist explanation.
The petition includes research or industry evidence whose significance is not readily apparent.
USCIS questions how the specific endeavor relates to a broader problem.
The available evidence requires professional interpretation.
The petition needs a clearer explanation of potential technological, scientific, or other field-level implications.

The need for an expert depends on the actual RFE. Not every Prong 1 concern requires a new opinion letter, and a letter cannot compensate for missing evidence that should be independently documented.

What makes an expert opinion more useful?

A defined question. The expert should understand the specific issue requiring analysis rather than being asked to provide a generic statement about the importance of the field.

Relevant qualifications. The expert’s professional background should be appropriate to the subject being evaluated.

Evidence-based reasoning. The assessment should refer to relevant documents, research, technical information, or other supporting materials.

A clear connection to the proposed endeavor. The expert should explain why the specific activities matter rather than discussing only the general importance of the industry.

Appropriate treatment of uncertainty. Potential impact should be described accurately. The letter should distinguish demonstrated results from projections and professional assessments.

What an expert letter cannot do

An expert opinion letter does not guarantee approval and does not replace the petitioner’s burden of establishing eligibility.

It should not make unsupported predictions, simply repeat the petitioner’s assertions, or present an expert’s view as a substitute for the legal analysis in the RFE response.

The strongest approach is to integrate relevant expert analysis with documentary evidence and a clear explanation of how the complete record addresses USCIS’s concern.

If you want to understand the typical structure and components of such a document, see the EB-2 NIW expert opinion letter sample and format guide. A sample can help explain document structure, but it should not be copied as a substitute for case-specific analysis.

How to Organize the Final Prong 1 RFE Response

The structure of the final response should follow the actual notice. A general planning framework may include the following elements.

1. Identify the issue being addressed

State the concern raised by USCIS and identify the relevant part of the proposed endeavor.

2. Clarify the proposed endeavor

Explain the specific activities, objectives, and intended outcomes relevant to the concern.

3. Present the supporting evidence

Identify the documents that substantiate the relevant factual claims.

4. Explain the connection to national importance

Show how the proposed work may have broader implications and why the supporting evidence is relevant to that analysis.

5. Address limitations or gaps directly

If the original evidence was ambiguous, projections were insufficiently explained, or the endeavor was described too broadly, address the issue accurately rather than relying on unsupported assertions.

6. Reference exhibits consistently

Organize supporting materials so the factual explanations can be traced to the relevant documents.

If the RFE also raises concerns about Prong 2, Prong 3, the underlying EB-2 classification, or another eligibility issue, those matters require their own substantive responses. Addressing Prong 1 alone does not resolve unrelated deficiencies.

Follow all instructions in the RFE concerning the deadline, response format, submission method, and required materials.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in a Dhanasar Prong 1 RFE Response

Relying on the general importance of a profession

A shortage of workers or a widely recognized need in an industry does not automatically establish that the petitioner’s specific endeavor is nationally important.

Repeating the original petition without resolving the concern

If USCIS has identified a specific evidentiary gap, the response should address that gap directly.

Submitting reports without explaining their relevance

A report may describe a national problem but leave unanswered how the proposed endeavor relates to it.

Treating every business benefit as a national benefit

Ordinary commercial success or benefits to a single employer do not automatically establish broader implications.

Making unsupported claims about future impact

Projections should be distinguished from actual achievements and supported where possible by credible evidence and reasonable assumptions.

Overrelying on recommendation letters

Praise for the petitioner’s experience does not necessarily explain the proposed endeavor’s potential impact.

Using an expert letter as a substitute for evidence

Expert analysis is most useful when it interprets and contextualizes a substantiated record rather than attempting to replace that record.

Confusing Prong 1 with Prong 2

The importance of the endeavor and the petitioner’s ability to advance it are distinct considerations. Strong credentials do not automatically establish national importance.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dhanasar Prong 1 RFEs

What does a Prong 1 RFE mean for an EB-2 NIW petition?

It means USCIS has requested additional evidence or clarification concerning whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. It does not automatically mean the petition will be denied. The next step is to identify the exact concerns in the notice and assess the evidence needed to address them.

How do substantial merit and national importance differ?

Substantial merit concerns the value of the proposed work. National importance concerns the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor. An endeavor may have substantial merit without demonstrating that its potential impact meets the national importance standard.

Does a proposed endeavor have to benefit the entire United States?

Not necessarily. A project can be geographically limited and still have national importance if its potential broader implications are adequately established. The relevant analysis focuses on the nature and potential impact of the endeavor, not geographic reach alone.

Can industry reports establish national importance?

Industry reports may provide useful background and document a relevant problem. However, the petitioner should explain how the specific proposed endeavor relates to that problem and why the evidence supports its potential broader impact.

Is an expert opinion letter required for every Prong 1 RFE?

No. The appropriate evidence depends on the RFE and the nature of the proposed endeavor. An expert opinion may help explain specialized issues, but other evidence and a clear factual explanation may be more appropriate in some cases.

Can strong qualifications overcome a weak Prong 1 argument?

Not automatically. Qualifications are primarily relevant to whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor under Prong 2. They do not, by themselves, establish that the endeavor has national importance.

Can a business plan help address national importance?

Yes, depending on its contents and supporting evidence. A detailed business plan may help explain the proposed activities, implementation strategy, resources, and potential effects. Unsupported claims about revenue, employment, or expansion should not be treated as established outcomes.

Should a Prong 1 RFE response address only national importance?

The response should address every material issue raised in the RFE. If USCIS has questioned both substantial merit and national importance, both should be addressed. Any additional eligibility concerns identified in the notice should also receive an appropriate response.

How AAE Evaluations Can Support Prong 1 Expert Evidence

When a proposed endeavor involves specialized technical, scientific, business, healthcare, or other professional issues, an independent expert may help explain the significance of the work and the relevance of the supporting evidence.

AAE Evaluations offers EB-2 NIW expert opinion letter services for petitioners seeking professional analysis of their proposed endeavors and supporting records.

For a Prong 1 RFE, the appropriate starting point is the actual notice, the original proposed endeavor statement, the evidence already submitted, and the specific questions that remain unresolved.

Depending on the case, an expert may be able to provide a focused assessment of the endeavor’s technical or professional significance, its relationship to a documented problem, and the basis for its potential broader impact.

An expert opinion should complement the complete evidentiary record and the legal response prepared with appropriate immigration counsel. It cannot guarantee an immigration outcome.

If you are considering whether independent analysis could help clarify your proposed endeavor’s significance, explore AAE Evaluations’ EB-2 NIW expert opinion letter services.

Conclusion

A response to a Dhanasar Prong 1 RFE requires more than showing that the petitioner’s occupation is valuable or that the industry is important.

The response should clearly define the proposed endeavor, identify the concern raised by USCIS, and explain how the supporting evidence establishes the endeavor’s substantial merit and potential prospective impact.

That may involve clarifying the scope of the work, connecting industry research to specific activities, substantiating economic projections, documenting potential broader implications, or obtaining independent expert analysis where appropriate.

The central principle is specificity: every material claim about national importance should be connected to the proposed endeavor and supported by relevant evidence.

For petitioners whose cases involve specialized professional or technical issues, an appropriately qualified independent expert may help explain the evidence. The final response should remain tailored to the actual RFE, consistent with the record, and compliant with the applicable USCIS submission requirements.